Phil does this a lot, usually in ways which present me with the dilemma of spending a lot of time correcting him, or letting others pick up a poor idea of what my positions are (because people have a poor ability to discount this kind of evidence). I’ve said as much to Phil, and he apparently thinks it’s fine to go on doing this—that it’s good for him to force me to correct him, even though others don’t make similar misinterpretations. Whether or not this is done from conscious malice doesn’t change the fact that it’s a behavior that forces me to expend resources or suffer a penalty, which is game-theoretically a hostile act.
So, to discourage this unpleasant behavior, it seems to me that rather than scratching his itch for his benefit (encouraging repetition), I should make some reply which encourages him not to do it again.
I would like to just reply: “Phil Goetz repeatedly misinterprets what I’m saying in an attempt to force me to correct him, which I consider very annoying behavior and have asked him to stop.” If that’s not what Phil intends.… well, see how it feels to be misinterpreted, Phil? Unfortunately this comes too close to lying for my tastes, so I’ll have to figure out some similar standard reply. Maybe even a standard comment to link to each time he does this.
Ok, I soften my critique given your reply which made a point I hadn’t fully considered. It sounds like the public disrespect is intentional, and it does have a purpose..
To be a good thing to do, you need to believe, among other things:
Publicly doing that is more likely to make him stop relative to privately doing it. (Seems plausible).
You’re not losing something greater than the wasted time by other people observing your doing it. (Unclear to me)
It would be better I think if you could just privately charge someone for the time wasted;but it does seem unlikely phil would agree to that.
I think your suggestion of linking to a fairly respectful but forceful reply works pretty well for the time being.
Sure. And my standard reply will be, “Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said.”
Phil does this a lot, usually in ways which present me with the dilemma of spending a lot of time correcting him, or letting others pick up a poor idea of what my positions are (because people have a poor ability to discount this kind of evidence). I’ve said as much to Phil, and he apparently thinks it’s fine to go on doing this—that it’s good for him to force me to correct him, even though others don’t make similar misinterpretations. Whether or not this is done from conscious malice doesn’t change the fact that it’s a behavior that forces me to expend resources or suffer a penalty, which is game-theoretically a hostile act.
So, to discourage this unpleasant behavior, it seems to me that rather than scratching his itch for his benefit (encouraging repetition), I should make some reply which encourages him not to do it again.
I would like to just reply: “Phil Goetz repeatedly misinterprets what I’m saying in an attempt to force me to correct him, which I consider very annoying behavior and have asked him to stop.” If that’s not what Phil intends.… well, see how it feels to be misinterpreted, Phil? Unfortunately this comes too close to lying for my tastes, so I’ll have to figure out some similar standard reply. Maybe even a standard comment to link to each time he does this.
Ok, I soften my critique given your reply which made a point I hadn’t fully considered.
It sounds like the public disrespect is intentional, and it does have a purpose.. To be a good thing to do, you need to believe, among other things:
Publicly doing that is more likely to make him stop relative to privately doing it. (Seems plausible).
You’re not losing something greater than the wasted time by other people observing your doing it. (Unclear to me)
It would be better I think if you could just privately charge someone for the time wasted;but it does seem unlikely phil would agree to that. I think your suggestion of linking to a fairly respectful but forceful reply works pretty well for the time being.
Sure. And my standard reply will be, “Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said.”
You’re doing it again.
Er, did you misparse? I think you read
Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m (misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said)
I thnk he meant
Eliezer repeatedly claims (that I’m misinterpreting him) in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said
I have to say, I disagree with much of what he says but PhilGoetz has never struck me as one of the site’s ne’er-do-wells.